Yeah, I know, but it is still a weakness. It means that much less that people will be familiar with it. We use Apple, but we only are enterprise in a loose term, definetly not the hundred thousand employee company of Corporate America. That is a huge market, sure hindered by volume discounts, but heck, if they got half profit and doubled their sales, it's the same amount in the pocket not even accounting for economy of scale.
Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.
The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.
Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.
The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.
That's something I do agree with. But, it seems as though Jobs doesn't.
As a developer I can say that I'd prefer "real" apps for iPhone, but I do understand the security/stability concerns. However, web apps can be very powerful and the key limitations are more faced on desktops than mobile devices (no drag and drop between apps or windows).
The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary. And this is only version 1.0.
Actually, i can't stop until i comment on that, i missed this quote. I cannot stop laughing at it though. are you 5 years old or something?
Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time? Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.
You have completely destroyed your own argument.
It's always a bad idea to jump in the middle of these, but...
Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).
Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.
And to the other poster who had audio issues with his Intel Mac, and used that to buttress murphyweb's statements re: the banality of the Intel machines themselves -- you CLEARLY never tried to do any sort of serious audio work on one of the first few generations of G5 PowerMacs. Apple has always had little glitches pop up from time to time -- that's what happens when you push the envelope with design, create a new machine from the ground up (yes, even one built with third party components), and perhaps don't test as thoroughly as you should --- but these glitches are easy to look past if you happen to be one of the people who finds the Apple experience to be a truly pleasureable one.
Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.
But this is exactly my point, you see an ipod sale as a hardware sale and therefore it goes into the hardware revenue box. What i am saying and what was at the root of Steve Jobs comment is the fact that an ipod sale is actually a software sale because an ipod is essentially a piece of software first and foremost, the lump of metal and chips it is running on is a side matter.
Quote:
Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).
That is exactly the reason why an imac with windows pre-installed would be the fastest growing computer in history, because people want an mac because it is seen as more stylish and cool. But when it comes down to the purchasing decision people would buy the dell as money is a clear driver, so apple would have no choice but to compete with dell and match prices accordingly. Making Apple the company who sells more computers than anyone else but like everyone else makes little margin. This is exactly how Apple would look if it was a hardware manufacturer.
Anyone who owns a mac however knows what makes it different from PC's, it is the operating system, this is apples only real USP. OSX is so stable partly because Apple control exactly what hardware that it is deployed on, there are no third party drivers or hardware glitches that can crash the OS. But this does not make Apple's hardware any better than the competition, they source all major components from the same factories that are making parts for every other kind of computer but because they control the configuration of the hardware it is more stable. This why people pay a premium for a mac.
PC manufactures have upped their game and are producing more stylish cases now, there products are cheaper because they are in a highly competitive segment of the market. Apple however can still charge a premium because they have a USP that nobody else can deliver and that is OSX. So if Apple sell an iMac for $2000 you could say they made a $2000 hardware sale, but the truth is it was the software that made that sale possible, because if it ran windows they would not have sold it for more than say $1400.
So to say that Apple is a hardware vendor is an over-simplification of the situation, Apple clearly is not a hardware vendor. All of Apples products are software, and i do not mean software based, or software driven or even mean they have operating systems. I mean they are Software full stop. The iPhone is software, it maybe delivered on a hardware platform that has a mouthpiece and speaker and looks like a phone but it is actually a software product. Same goes for everything else, AppleTV is all software.
To put it simply buy a new iMac, format the drive and load Vista on it, what would you have?
You would an overpriced, underpowered but nice looking PC. Would you pay a premium for it? Of course you wouldn't. So saying i am over-simplifying the subject is not true because it is very simple.
Murphyweb, you present your argument very articulately and I concur with your views wholeheartedly. I have been in the computer industry (sales PC) since 1980. For me, I recognized this fact since the Apple Lisa and its suite of applications. The name escapes me right now, but it had seven or 7 in its name. It was price that stopped the LIsa back then, $10,000. Apples next $10,000 machine was a LaserWriter, chock full of Canon parts, but with Postscript. Although not strictly an Apple software development, Apple had a considerable financial interest in PostScript. It still demonstrates your view of software showing off its advantages through the hardware. How true it is, ALL of Apples offerings have Apple software DNA in it.
However, in accepting this, my view is that Apple will eventually take on Microsoft head on. When they do, it will be the holistic Apple approach that will win the day. It not really Apple "taking on" Microsoft, they just see that there has got to be a better way of doing this. Success means winning marketshare as a consequence of doing it better, and that share comes from somewhere.
However, I'm ranting.
I too believe Apple is working toward a critical mass of device coherency, that nobody else could/can cobble together. I also feel that Apple has learned well from their many misadventures, but you could see what they were trying to do (Newton, Pippin, Docking Mac). I have enjoyed the ride for the past 25 years with Apple, and look forward to what may come of the iPhone.
Todays forum topic has made for good reading. I also look forward to reading your future posts. You have a "melgross perception"
Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time?
No, it wouldn't be the fastest selling computer of all time. If it were, why wouldn't apple do it? Just so they don't have to make money? No, they don't do it because people, when looking at PCs, look at price and features as much as the mac-only importance of looks. PC makers sell more lower end computers then higher end ones. Users DON"T want all the crap that Apple insists on throwing into their computers. And most PC owners have monitors, and would balk at having to throw them out just to buy an iMac.
Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?
Quote:
Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.
Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers?
Quote:
You really need to understand that there is no money in hardware sales, There are plenty of companies out there that sell much much more tin than Apple and are not worth a fraction of the value as Apple.
I'm sorry, again, you need to look at apple's financials. Apple has margins of 30% on its hardware. Do not say there's no money in hardware, since most of their revenues come from hardware sales, and most of their profit come from the margins on said hardware sales. Apple uses its software to sell hardware, not the other way around. If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
So the founder and CEO of a company says...
"If you look at the reason the iPod exists, it's because these really great Japanese consumer companies couldn't conceive of and implement the appropriate software. The iPod is in a beautiful box, but it's software. If you look at what a Mac is, it's OS X, in a beautiful box. So the big secret about Apple is that Apple views itself as a software company. And there aren't many software companies left."
So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.
And he's on stage with the MS guy, so of course he wants to argue he's a software company. But you don't think that if it were him and mikey dell, he wouldn't be talking up his hardware?
fine, the iphone isn't a smart phone. it's a phone that can do 90% of the things a smart phone can do, but you're forced to make your programs in a manner that's STABLE, ohh, and it all fits inside your ipod... and it's actually easy to use. the first time i picked up a pearl it took me 10 minutes to give my buddy my contact info.
It drives me nuts when people suck into Jobs' RDF and don't realize the crap that he spreads. There is nothing inheritenly stable about web apps, nor unstable about standard apps. It all depends on how stable the underlying software is. If Webkit or the kernel or other pieces has issues with some javascript that causes the phone to crash, then using a web app can cause the phone to crash. And if OS X is so stable for an OS that the above is unlikely, how can you argue, then, that installing a standard app can crash the phone? And, then, why do people not care about such things not scream that OS X.5 should remove all application capabilities and just allow web apps as well, because, apparently, the OS is so unstable our laptops will crash left and right otherwise (and between the two, I could live without my phone for a day, I couldn't live without my laptop, as its what all my work is actually done on).
WM has nothing to worry about from the iPhone that's being released on the 29th. Why do you think WM will suffer. I think Apple is in for a surprise after the initial sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Good point. If Chnagewave is fairly correct—and I think they are—it will be Windows Mobile that will suffer the most hit in overall marketshare from the upcoming Cupertino device.
What's the big frickin concern that 3rd party apps would make the phones crash. Well, no shit, a badly writting 3rd party app can make any OS crash. Have some faith in the developers. I loads all types of programs on my WM smartphone, and it has yet to crash. Surly a OS built around OSX is more stable that a OS built around Windows......right?!?!
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.
You have hit the nail on the head. The only other factual item that you did not mention that incontrovertibly proves this point is Apple's clone disaster.
When Apple allowed companies to build systems and license Mac OS it nearly put Apple under for good. I know that the clone makers actually brought better machines to market and released them quicker than Apple did. Even with that being said, if Apple were a software company the clone manufacturers would not have brought Apple to the brink, it would have pushed them to the domination of the computing world.
Why are so many people of the mindset that... No, the iPhone will never have 3rd party applications , period, end of sentence.
I just don't see the basis for this line of thinking... and unless I missed something I don't **think** Steve ever made such a claim. He did say that no SDK would be available (give us time he said) and then at WWDC he did say that developers can use Safari to develop iPhone apps and then they wouldn't need an SDK but none of that adds up to NO 3rd PARTY APPS EVER!
Was it said that NO SDK would ever come?
Was it said that Safari apps would be the only solution ever?
Was it sad that Apple would have ZERO (back-room) deals with 3rd party developers to create new software for the iPhone similar to what we see with the iPod? Unless I'm mistaken an iPod SDK still doesn't exist and yet we still have 3rd party apps.
All I'm saying is I think people are taking this line of 'NO 3RD PARTY APPS' thinking far too absolute/permanent.
Thats fine i have no problem with people not agreeing with me, i would suggest however that you have failed to understand my point or even read my posts correctly.
Quote:
Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?
You miss the point here totally, you cannot buy a mac without OSX, if you put windows on your mac after the fact then Apple have still sold you an OSX license whether you use it or not and yes of course installing an OS is beyond the vast majority of computer users, in fact most computer uses do not even understand what an OS is! You ask people what computer they use and how many times would the answer be "windows"? And this brings me on to...
Quote:
Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers
This should be very obvious, iMacs shipped with vista would sell record numbers because Apple is a cool brand and people would love to buy Apple PC's if they were as cheap as Dell and HP PC's and sold in their local high street stores. And they would be as cheap because Apple would then be a hardware manufacturer and with no other USP apart from a sexy case they would need to dig in and compete with the other PC Manufacturers. Most 'average' computer users do not buy Mac's, they are expensive and people do not understand them because they are not windows. But the people that do buy them buy them because the operating system is much better than windows and due to Apples control over what hardware their software runs on is much more stable. Windows have taken a giant march on Apple and it will take time to change the perception, but things like the ipod and iphone will dramatically turn things around for Apple Macs, they will gain more market share because they now have a large customer base of Apple consumers who will begin to look at macs as a future computer purchases and with education will understand the benefits of OSX. Hence why the Apple shops.
The actual computers that Apple sell are no better in terms of specifications and quality than any PC costing 50% cheaper. And now they use Intel processors i am not sure there is any difference at all.
So the whole point of my argument still stacks up, Apple are not a hardware vendor because if they were then they would sell Apple PC's because it is PC's that sell to the masses and that is where Apples market would be. The fact that Apple only sell computers running their own OS regardless of their tiny market share tells me that they are primarily a software company and a bloody good one at that. They can make large profits on their computers because they have such a strong USP in OSX, they would not get away with it otherwise. Don't think for a minute that Apple make such great margins because they have better hardware than anyone else, it is plainly not true.
Quote:
So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.
No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.
Quote:
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business. Services and software make money for vendors not hardware. Apple make money out of the deal because they get sell there product for higher margin precisely because of OSX, Apples entire business plan has revolved around keeping a tight control over what hardware their software is deployed on. This is the biggest reason they their OS is so stable and therefore so highly regarded that users will pay a premium to have it. Licensing OSX to another manufacturer both devalues their core product and could create negativity around the product if it is not as stable running on an open architecture.
Quote:
If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?
Like i originally said, Safari could be the start of something.
Right i am finished with this, like i said you can disagree but i think i know what i am talking about and i believe in the software. This post originally started by my thinking about an Apple assault on the enterprise software market and i still think this is a highly likely move on their part. Obviously not many believe that because Apple are not a software company and are just a hardware vendor, thats fine but when it happens you may remember this conversation.
Good day to you.
Petermac, cheers for your support, we appear to live in the same town, G'Day!!
As a developer I can say that I'd prefer "real" apps for iPhone, but I do understand the security/stability concerns. However, web apps can be very powerful and the key limitations are more faced on desktops than mobile devices (no drag and drop between apps or windows).
The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary.
For business apps, I'll say sure. But what if I want to, say, make the iPhone into a new type of controller for a video game? How do I do that within a web browser? That's an example of the interesting type of application which will make the iPhone's unique technology exciting.
For example, one of my favorite apps for my current cell phone (Sony Ericsson Z600) is Salling Clicker. I highly doubt it'd be possible to do that within a web app.
Sorry, but web application development doesn't interest me in the slightest. Contrary to what Steve says, I rarely launch Dashboard for anything (I launch it more times by accident). And about the only web app I use on a regular basis is Google maps (and I check the weather, but that's not really an app). I have a feeling it'll be same when I get an iPhone.
Which is fine -- that's exactly what I'm expecting to be able to do with the iPhone -- make calls, listen to music, take pictures, check/send email, text message, store my contact info and schedule, and get directions when I'm lost. But it's nice to discover those extra little things you can do with a phone (and especially the unique technology of the iPhone) which you didn't think of when you first bought it. It's what really makes a device something personal.
No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.
But you didn't answer my question. If the Zune were to have the iPod OS, would it be a hit? Not if it came out before, but right now. Would people flock to it just as much, because the OS is the same, so its the same device?
Quote:
There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business.
OK, I understand you're whole "Well, I know I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" feeling, but did you not follow the simple point that Apple's margins on their hardware is 30%. That's not a little, that's not thin. That's a boatload of cash, as in "For every mac sold, they garner a 30% profit". So don't tell me there's no margins in hardware.
Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.
Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.
He's assuming that the $150, or so, profit that Apple makes on the low end Mac Book, all comes from the included OS and iLife software, and that people are only buying the machine because of that software.
While people do buy the machine because of the OS to the greatest extent, his error is in assuming that the OEM price that Apple's software division charges the hardware division (probably around $50) doesn't exist, and that the price is actually $129, almost all profit.
Even if that were true, and it isn't, he doesn't realise that Apple doesn't make the hardware to sell the software, but the other way around, and that over half the people I know who have bought a Mac for the first time didn't even know that iLife was included when they bought the machine, which means, so much for that argument.
.... this does not at all mean that the iPhone cannot capture a segment of the smart phone market, because many of the smart phone users do not need to install applications, but mainly use it for messaging, contact management, scheduling, etc.... which are all capable features that should be built into the iPhone as part of its core functionality ....
****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
This has been (for the most part) an enjoyable thread to read on how people feel about the two primary discussions (though the software/hardware business debate is rather off topic).
For the software/hardware debate. Something to ponder... Is Dell a hardware company company? They are not an ODM, so they don't make their own hardware. There are truly very few ODMs... and even fewer who are present in the retail channel.
Concerning software add-ons/installs for the iPhone. It was actually specifically spelled out a few times in very public places by Apple that there will be further Software added to the phone in the future. The exclusion of direct 3rd party developer involvement via a SDK is rather disappointing... and if Apple was more serious about the web space being a true alternative, then flash would be supported so we could use it for offline purposes.
In the end, the early adopters (which I hope to be since I am moving back to the States on the 5th ) should only purchase the device based upon what it is now.
However... I will always be keeping a great amount of hope out that the device will also eventually include solid SIP abilities so I can integrate the device with my office... oh joy.
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
I agree that, for now, the iPhone is irrelevant for most business users. But, I know a number of business users that have Treo's, and a couple with Windows Mobile models as well.
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
They must not get text messages with photo's from other phones then because that doesn't work on a Crack berry. Push email. I am not sure why this feature ranks king among my kind. Why not just have the phone check every few minutes like a COMPUTER.
Not check the web? What kind of business are they in? Highschool? I check stock quotes currently quite a bit. Google Apps (company calendar mainly) would be sweet!!! iPhone all the way...
Comments
Yeah, I know, but it is still a weakness. It means that much less that people will be familiar with it. We use Apple, but we only are enterprise in a loose term, definetly not the hundred thousand employee company of Corporate America. That is a huge market, sure hindered by volume discounts, but heck, if they got half profit and doubled their sales, it's the same amount in the pocket not even accounting for economy of scale.
Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.
The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.
Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.
The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.
That's something I do agree with. But, it seems as though Jobs doesn't.
The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary. And this is only version 1.0.
Actually, i can't stop until i comment on that, i missed this quote. I cannot stop laughing at it though. are you 5 years old or something?
Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time? Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.
You have completely destroyed your own argument.
It's always a bad idea to jump in the middle of these, but...
Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).
Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.
And to the other poster who had audio issues with his Intel Mac, and used that to buttress murphyweb's statements re: the banality of the Intel machines themselves -- you CLEARLY never tried to do any sort of serious audio work on one of the first few generations of G5 PowerMacs. Apple has always had little glitches pop up from time to time -- that's what happens when you push the envelope with design, create a new machine from the ground up (yes, even one built with third party components), and perhaps don't test as thoroughly as you should --- but these glitches are easy to look past if you happen to be one of the people who finds the Apple experience to be a truly pleasureable one.
Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.
But this is exactly my point, you see an ipod sale as a hardware sale and therefore it goes into the hardware revenue box. What i am saying and what was at the root of Steve Jobs comment is the fact that an ipod sale is actually a software sale because an ipod is essentially a piece of software first and foremost, the lump of metal and chips it is running on is a side matter.
Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).
That is exactly the reason why an imac with windows pre-installed would be the fastest growing computer in history, because people want an mac because it is seen as more stylish and cool. But when it comes down to the purchasing decision people would buy the dell as money is a clear driver, so apple would have no choice but to compete with dell and match prices accordingly. Making Apple the company who sells more computers than anyone else but like everyone else makes little margin. This is exactly how Apple would look if it was a hardware manufacturer.
Anyone who owns a mac however knows what makes it different from PC's, it is the operating system, this is apples only real USP. OSX is so stable partly because Apple control exactly what hardware that it is deployed on, there are no third party drivers or hardware glitches that can crash the OS. But this does not make Apple's hardware any better than the competition, they source all major components from the same factories that are making parts for every other kind of computer but because they control the configuration of the hardware it is more stable. This why people pay a premium for a mac.
PC manufactures have upped their game and are producing more stylish cases now, there products are cheaper because they are in a highly competitive segment of the market. Apple however can still charge a premium because they have a USP that nobody else can deliver and that is OSX. So if Apple sell an iMac for $2000 you could say they made a $2000 hardware sale, but the truth is it was the software that made that sale possible, because if it ran windows they would not have sold it for more than say $1400.
So to say that Apple is a hardware vendor is an over-simplification of the situation, Apple clearly is not a hardware vendor. All of Apples products are software, and i do not mean software based, or software driven or even mean they have operating systems. I mean they are Software full stop. The iPhone is software, it maybe delivered on a hardware platform that has a mouthpiece and speaker and looks like a phone but it is actually a software product. Same goes for everything else, AppleTV is all software.
To put it simply buy a new iMac, format the drive and load Vista on it, what would you have?
You would an overpriced, underpowered but nice looking PC. Would you pay a premium for it? Of course you wouldn't. So saying i am over-simplifying the subject is not true because it is very simple.
However, in accepting this, my view is that Apple will eventually take on Microsoft head on. When they do, it will be the holistic Apple approach that will win the day. It not really Apple "taking on" Microsoft, they just see that there has got to be a better way of doing this. Success means winning marketshare as a consequence of doing it better, and that share comes from somewhere.
However, I'm ranting.
I too believe Apple is working toward a critical mass of device coherency, that nobody else could/can cobble together. I also feel that Apple has learned well from their many misadventures, but you could see what they were trying to do (Newton, Pippin, Docking Mac). I have enjoyed the ride for the past 25 years with Apple, and look forward to what may come of the iPhone.
Todays forum topic has made for good reading. I also look forward to reading your future posts. You have a "melgross perception"
Good evening
Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time?
No, it wouldn't be the fastest selling computer of all time. If it were, why wouldn't apple do it? Just so they don't have to make money? No, they don't do it because people, when looking at PCs, look at price and features as much as the mac-only importance of looks. PC makers sell more lower end computers then higher end ones. Users DON"T want all the crap that Apple insists on throwing into their computers. And most PC owners have monitors, and would balk at having to throw them out just to buy an iMac.
Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?
Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.
Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers?
You really need to understand that there is no money in hardware sales, There are plenty of companies out there that sell much much more tin than Apple and are not worth a fraction of the value as Apple.
I'm sorry, again, you need to look at apple's financials. Apple has margins of 30% on its hardware. Do not say there's no money in hardware, since most of their revenues come from hardware sales, and most of their profit come from the margins on said hardware sales. Apple uses its software to sell hardware, not the other way around. If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.
So the founder and CEO of a company says...
"If you look at the reason the iPod exists, it's because these really great Japanese consumer companies couldn't conceive of and implement the appropriate software. The iPod is in a beautiful box, but it's software. If you look at what a Mac is, it's OS X, in a beautiful box. So the big secret about Apple is that Apple views itself as a software company. And there aren't many software companies left."
So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.
And he's on stage with the MS guy, so of course he wants to argue he's a software company. But you don't think that if it were him and mikey dell, he wouldn't be talking up his hardware?
fine, the iphone isn't a smart phone. it's a phone that can do 90% of the things a smart phone can do, but you're forced to make your programs in a manner that's STABLE, ohh, and it all fits inside your ipod... and it's actually easy to use. the first time i picked up a pearl it took me 10 minutes to give my buddy my contact info.
It drives me nuts when people suck into Jobs' RDF and don't realize the crap that he spreads. There is nothing inheritenly stable about web apps, nor unstable about standard apps. It all depends on how stable the underlying software is. If Webkit or the kernel or other pieces has issues with some javascript that causes the phone to crash, then using a web app can cause the phone to crash. And if OS X is so stable for an OS that the above is unlikely, how can you argue, then, that installing a standard app can crash the phone? And, then, why do people not care about such things not scream that OS X.5 should remove all application capabilities and just allow web apps as well, because, apparently, the OS is so unstable our laptops will crash left and right otherwise (and between the two, I could live without my phone for a day, I couldn't live without my laptop, as its what all my work is actually done on).
Good point. If Chnagewave is fairly correct—and I think they are—it will be Windows Mobile that will suffer the most hit in overall marketshare from the upcoming Cupertino device.
What's the big frickin concern that 3rd party apps would make the phones crash. Well, no shit, a badly writting 3rd party app can make any OS crash. Have some faith in the developers. I loads all types of programs on my WM smartphone, and it has yet to crash. Surly a OS built around OSX is more stable that a OS built around Windows......right?!?!
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.
You have hit the nail on the head. The only other factual item that you did not mention that incontrovertibly proves this point is Apple's clone disaster.
When Apple allowed companies to build systems and license Mac OS it nearly put Apple under for good. I know that the clone makers actually brought better machines to market and released them quicker than Apple did. Even with that being said, if Apple were a software company the clone manufacturers would not have brought Apple to the brink, it would have pushed them to the domination of the computing world.
Why are so many people of the mindset that... No, the iPhone will never have 3rd party applications , period, end of sentence.
I just don't see the basis for this line of thinking... and unless I missed something I don't **think** Steve ever made such a claim. He did say that no SDK would be available (give us time he said) and then at WWDC he did say that developers can use Safari to develop iPhone apps and then they wouldn't need an SDK but none of that adds up to NO 3rd PARTY APPS EVER!
Was it said that NO SDK would ever come?
Was it said that Safari apps would be the only solution ever?
Was it sad that Apple would have ZERO (back-room) deals with 3rd party developers to create new software for the iPhone similar to what we see with the iPod? Unless I'm mistaken an iPod SDK still doesn't exist and yet we still have 3rd party apps.
All I'm saying is I think people are taking this line of 'NO 3RD PARTY APPS' thinking far too absolute/permanent.
Dave
Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?
You miss the point here totally, you cannot buy a mac without OSX, if you put windows on your mac after the fact then Apple have still sold you an OSX license whether you use it or not and yes of course installing an OS is beyond the vast majority of computer users, in fact most computer uses do not even understand what an OS is! You ask people what computer they use and how many times would the answer be "windows"? And this brings me on to...
Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers
This should be very obvious, iMacs shipped with vista would sell record numbers because Apple is a cool brand and people would love to buy Apple PC's if they were as cheap as Dell and HP PC's and sold in their local high street stores. And they would be as cheap because Apple would then be a hardware manufacturer and with no other USP apart from a sexy case they would need to dig in and compete with the other PC Manufacturers. Most 'average' computer users do not buy Mac's, they are expensive and people do not understand them because they are not windows. But the people that do buy them buy them because the operating system is much better than windows and due to Apples control over what hardware their software runs on is much more stable. Windows have taken a giant march on Apple and it will take time to change the perception, but things like the ipod and iphone will dramatically turn things around for Apple Macs, they will gain more market share because they now have a large customer base of Apple consumers who will begin to look at macs as a future computer purchases and with education will understand the benefits of OSX. Hence why the Apple shops.
The actual computers that Apple sell are no better in terms of specifications and quality than any PC costing 50% cheaper. And now they use Intel processors i am not sure there is any difference at all.
So the whole point of my argument still stacks up, Apple are not a hardware vendor because if they were then they would sell Apple PC's because it is PC's that sell to the masses and that is where Apples market would be. The fact that Apple only sell computers running their own OS regardless of their tiny market share tells me that they are primarily a software company and a bloody good one at that. They can make large profits on their computers because they have such a strong USP in OSX, they would not get away with it otherwise. Don't think for a minute that Apple make such great margins because they have better hardware than anyone else, it is plainly not true.
So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.
No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?
There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business. Services and software make money for vendors not hardware. Apple make money out of the deal because they get sell there product for higher margin precisely because of OSX, Apples entire business plan has revolved around keeping a tight control over what hardware their software is deployed on. This is the biggest reason they their OS is so stable and therefore so highly regarded that users will pay a premium to have it. Licensing OSX to another manufacturer both devalues their core product and could create negativity around the product if it is not as stable running on an open architecture.
If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?
Like i originally said, Safari could be the start of something.
Right i am finished with this, like i said you can disagree but i think i know what i am talking about and i believe in the software. This post originally started by my thinking about an Apple assault on the enterprise software market and i still think this is a highly likely move on their part. Obviously not many believe that because Apple are not a software company and are just a hardware vendor, thats fine but when it happens you may remember this conversation.
Good day to you.
Petermac, cheers for your support, we appear to live in the same town, G'Day!!
As a developer I can say that I'd prefer "real" apps for iPhone, but I do understand the security/stability concerns. However, web apps can be very powerful and the key limitations are more faced on desktops than mobile devices (no drag and drop between apps or windows).
The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary.
For business apps, I'll say sure. But what if I want to, say, make the iPhone into a new type of controller for a video game? How do I do that within a web browser? That's an example of the interesting type of application which will make the iPhone's unique technology exciting.
For example, one of my favorite apps for my current cell phone (Sony Ericsson Z600) is Salling Clicker. I highly doubt it'd be possible to do that within a web app.
Sorry, but web application development doesn't interest me in the slightest. Contrary to what Steve says, I rarely launch Dashboard for anything (I launch it more times by accident). And about the only web app I use on a regular basis is Google maps (and I check the weather, but that's not really an app). I have a feeling it'll be same when I get an iPhone.
Which is fine -- that's exactly what I'm expecting to be able to do with the iPhone -- make calls, listen to music, take pictures, check/send email, text message, store my contact info and schedule, and get directions when I'm lost. But it's nice to discover those extra little things you can do with a phone (and especially the unique technology of the iPhone) which you didn't think of when you first bought it. It's what really makes a device something personal.
No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.
But you didn't answer my question. If the Zune were to have the iPod OS, would it be a hit? Not if it came out before, but right now. Would people flock to it just as much, because the OS is the same, so its the same device?
There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business.
OK, I understand you're whole "Well, I know I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" feeling, but did you not follow the simple point that Apple's margins on their hardware is 30%. That's not a little, that's not thin. That's a boatload of cash, as in "For every mac sold, they garner a 30% profit". So don't tell me there's no margins in hardware.
Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.
Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.
He's assuming that the $150, or so, profit that Apple makes on the low end Mac Book, all comes from the included OS and iLife software, and that people are only buying the machine because of that software.
While people do buy the machine because of the OS to the greatest extent, his error is in assuming that the OEM price that Apple's software division charges the hardware division (probably around $50) doesn't exist, and that the price is actually $129, almost all profit.
Even if that were true, and it isn't, he doesn't realise that Apple doesn't make the hardware to sell the software, but the other way around, and that over half the people I know who have bought a Mac for the first time didn't even know that iLife was included when they bought the machine, which means, so much for that argument.
.... this does not at all mean that the iPhone cannot capture a segment of the smart phone market, because many of the smart phone users do not need to install applications, but mainly use it for messaging, contact management, scheduling, etc.... which are all capable features that should be built into the iPhone as part of its core functionality ....
****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
For the software/hardware debate. Something to ponder... Is Dell a hardware company company? They are not an ODM, so they don't make their own hardware. There are truly very few ODMs... and even fewer who are present in the retail channel.
Concerning software add-ons/installs for the iPhone. It was actually specifically spelled out a few times in very public places by Apple that there will be further Software added to the phone in the future. The exclusion of direct 3rd party developer involvement via a SDK is rather disappointing... and if Apple was more serious about the web space being a true alternative, then flash would be supported so we could use it for offline purposes.
In the end, the early adopters (which I hope to be since I am moving back to the States on the 5th
However... I will always be keeping a great amount of hope out that the device will also eventually include solid SIP abilities so I can integrate the device with my office... oh joy.
[
****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
I agree that, for now, the iPhone is irrelevant for most business users. But, I know a number of business users that have Treo's, and a couple with Windows Mobile models as well.
[
****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert
At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.
I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.
I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.
I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.
I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.
Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?
IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
They must not get text messages with photo's from other phones then because that doesn't work on a Crack berry. Push email. I am not sure why this feature ranks king among my kind. Why not just have the phone check every few minutes like a COMPUTER.
Not check the web? What kind of business are they in? Highschool?
Crackberry addict here...